NSF Reports No Geek Shortage 233
Baldrson writes "The NSF's report titled 'Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineering Programs Up in 2003, But Declines for First-Time Foreign Students' (a pdf of the report released for the first time last month) is now available online. In an analysis of the report, Edwin S. Rubenstein of ESR Research states of these latest figures: '4.2 percent of science and engineering PhDs work outside their field of training, chiefly for financial reasons. This further weakens corporate America's claim of a shortage of high-tech workers.'" Interesting to see how things have changed since then.
Dunno about the States... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Canada atleast, it doesn't feel like there's any shortage in tech workers. The salaries for new graduates keeps going down each year - eventhough the cost of living and the cost of education keeps going up every year.
Switching fields may prove the shortage (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I know many people in my field of science who are doing other things because of the lack of academic jobs. Big pharmaceuticals and other corporations can use people with graduate degrees in almost any kind of science, because they have the statistical and/or logical toolkits that can be applied to other work. So these folks would be counted as doing work "outside their field of training", and are doing so because of "greater financial opportunities".
If anything, though, this doesn't mean there is a shortage of jobs for science and engineering degrees. It means that there are a shortage of people qualified to do trained statistics and problem-solving, and corporations are willing to pay a premium to raid surplus academics to get them.
--John [johnhawks.net]Re:Shortage due to Schooling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this because the jobs really require such, or because if a company has access to the entire world's labor, they would hire PhD's to flip burgers if they could pay them what they pay a citizen. In otherwords, it is not a "need" but a possibility that is taken advantage of.
Normally companies don't do this with citizens because they feel "natives" would get too bored if they are overqualified. However, the perception is that foreign workers won't complain. This may be true because it is better than their alternatives in their native country. Third-world workers are obviously going to be less picky because they grew up with less. Plus, if they are picky, they can be replaced because there are 6 billion people on the planet. This makes it easier to find somebody willing to be exploited.
Re: I read that as 4%? (Score:3, Interesting)
you can see some statistics (including production vs time) here: http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/emptrends.ht
Chemistry probably produces more, and Biology/Biochem even more than that.
Re:Dunno about the States... (Score:2, Interesting)
Many of us geeks would indeed consider that, with the flood of H1B's and Bushification of the political scene here. And, with global warming and putting on a few pounds over the years, the climate might be palettable now. Canada is kind of a "stealth country": nobody bothers them or hates them because they stay in a quiet corner and mind their own business. So what if milk and cheese costs a little more. Now, more expensive porn, that could be a problem for geeks....
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:5, Interesting)
For whatever reason, many companies don't really value experience. Managers view it like factory work: "Can they put the peg into the hole when needed?" Or "Do they know JavaFoo++ and have a cert?"
Plus, with starting salaries averaging higher than public school teachers or police officers... calling them "C" salaries is stretching it a bit.
But technology careers are more volatile. When the economy goes bad, the demand for cops is even higher because idle people get into more trouble. And teachers have the protection of government policies and unions. Further, they get the summer off , have longer holiday periods, have good benefits and retirement packages. Teaching is usally more cushy and stable in comparison. And, cops don't need a college degree. Tech is a grind with Dilbertian bosses with limited upward mobility.
Re:Comparative Advantage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a geek isn't just about your field, it's about having a true passion for what you do. It's when you've found the work in life that you love. An example of a famous geek is Richard Feynman. He was a physics geek. If you read his biography and lectures, it becomes readily apparant that he LOVES physics. He worked in the field for that reason alone, that he made money at it and became famous was secondary.
Well I find that by and large, the Indian students (I work for an electrical engineering department) are in it because it is percieved as a good job. They believe that engineering is really the only acceptable degree to get, and that with it they'll get a good job. I find the grad students are very similar. They should be in it for the love of learning, to do orignal research, but for most of them it's just more hoops to jump through so they can get a better job. The result is that they tend to be uncreative, and have difficulty applying their knowledge. They have lots of facts and forumlas memorized and are fine on the theory, but when it comes to real world problem solving, they are sunk on even simple tasks.
Now, as with all generalizations, this one is not a universal truth, there are some very, very smart Indian grad students. However I find that the majority Indian and Chinese students are not good critical thinkers, not good problem solvers, and not engineering geeks. They are in it to try and get a better job only. I find that the majority of American (north and south) and European grad students are in it for the love of learning. They have something they want to study and that's why they are here. Their critical thinking and problem solving tends to be much better.
I think it is cultural to a fairly large degree. A friend of mine is an CE grad, but now works in network support. He said that basically, engineering was the only option his family considered acceptable for him. He was going to unviersity, and he was going to be an engineer. Didn't matter what kind, but he was going to be an engineer. He's really not all that interested in it, hence he's working in something else right now (CE has almost nothing to do with network support).
To me it seems the US is much more open to doing what you want to do. You go to university and then you decide what you want to do. Many people even get degrees in unrelated fields, just general liberal arts degress, what an undergraduate degree used to be anyhow.
Personally, I think this is better. Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer any more than everyone is cut out to be an artist or musician. Many people can be engineers, if they struggle through the program, but that doesn't mean they should be, or that they'll be good at it.
The same is true of IT. Whenever I interview someone, I'm not actually trying to find out their computer knowledge. I really don't care all that much and I've already checked their resume. What I'm tyring to find out is if they are a computer geek. Do they like playing with computers? Do they like fixing them? Are computers something they really understand, or do they just have a lot of theoritical knowledge they can't apply? Those are the things I want to know. If the person's a geek and they can solve tech problems, the rest isn't that important. You can be trained in new things, but having an affinity for something just seems to be something you are born with.
So the US may indeed still have an innovative advantage. If we encourage people to follow their dreams, and encourage creative thinking, that helps produce people who are better at what they do. Sheer numbers don't matter. Ask any competent software producer what's better: One really good programmer that loves to program and can problem solve or 10 code monkeys. They'll all tell you they'd take the good programmer.
I think that number is off... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like someone is off by an order of magnitude?
Re:Comparative Advantage? (Score:3, Interesting)
but are 5 Indians for the same price really going to have less total good ideas than one US citizen? This is an insult to other cultures and nations.
You're asking the wong question. Firstly, you assume that the high price of US engineers somehow exists in a vacuum. Fact is, those engineers need somewhere to sleep, food to eat, and loans to repay (college ain't cheap). Indians are cheap because all that other stuff is cheap and their standard of living reflects it. If you wish to make the US into a third world country, I'll invite you to do it elsewhere - maintaining the standard of living also means that there are people to support the companies that employ those engineers.
What burns me about the whole situation is that corporations want to do business in a first world country and pay third world rates. What's worse, those workers willing to emigrate find that India really hates to let you work there unless you were born there. Do you see the dilemma? Go to school for 16 years only to find your job exported with no way to replace it or pay the bills. Meanwhile, MS bitches about a shortage of engineers.
Where have all the smart geeks gone? (Score:4, Interesting)
I sure hope everyone elses experience with their IT departments is better than mine. It just seems that the longer I hang around the worse the IT personnel have become. I don't believe the shortage of IT workers can be determined by university registrations as many are no longer working in the industry because they became disgruntled and found they could do other things for similar or more money and be much happier at it while getting their geeky IT fill on their friends and relatives PC's and home networks. The only shortage in the IT industry is in the salary, benefits, and respect afforded those willing to work in IT who have the knowledge to actually handle what's going on and manage a business' IT infrastructure.
Re:Comparative Advantage? (Score:4, Interesting)
I so utterly, totally, and completely agree! How many people in their figure out what they are really passionate about, and then get a chance to do it professionally?
So much of our training a la public schooling was to focus on our weak points - if we excelled at math, but were weak with Language Arts, what were we made to invest our time into? Math? Not.
How much easier life would be if, when assessed for our weaknesses, they focused instead on our strengths? As in "Well, your language arts competence is passable, but your math scores are out of this world! Let's talk about math, since it is very possibly something you love doing... "
What if we focused on doing the stuff that's easy for us, that we ENJOY doing, instead of focusing on our areas of weakness? Now much self-confidence would we get, knowing that we were blessed with a particular strength found useful by others, rather than knowing we can't do Language Arts to "standard"?
Our public education system is clearly and specifically engineered to produce quiet, obedient, non-questioning factory workers - except that the factory worker of the 19th century is extinct. We should be working instead to foster alternative education strategies, since the classroom environment has failed so well.
Re:If US degrees were worth a damn... (Score:4, Interesting)
For contrary views see the survey of higher education in the current Economist [economist.com] and this story [guardian.co.uk] in the Guardian.
I have often heard the complaint that 'kids these days' aren't getting the same quality of education that was offered of yore. I tutor high school students in math and chemistry and I work as a programmer in a laboratory full of grad students. My experience is that the good students are getting at least as good an education as I received 25-30 years ago. However, this may be obscured by the huge numbers of students who are going on to college (see Sturgeon's Law [jargon.net]). Personally, I am pleased to see so many people getting a shot at higher education, even if many of them don't get all the benefit they could from it.
Re:"Analysis" is only skin deep (Score:0, Interesting)
Be careful now. Doesn't this position support the anti-visa argument? Let's see, enrollment up, foreigners down. Yep. Now it's time to take on the H1-B crowd who have been depressing wages for the last two decades.
AFA the educational lobby: Does anyone else find it morally reprehensible that a state institution, partially funded through taxes on instate residents, have higher entrance requirements for instate residents than out of state? That's what's happened here in Maryland. Apparently the university feels its mission is to collect higher out of state tuitions than to provide for post secondary education of the resident taxpayers.
It's high time for the ivory tower to meet the road of reality. Once we eliminate the tenure safety net we can outsource your jobs too.
Re:Extremely Biased Site? (Score:1, Interesting)
Shouldn't be linked to? Why, so that you'll never have any of your preconceived ideas challenged?
VDare.com does have a particular point of view, yes -- but they back up that point of view with commentary and reports of studies that the mainstream media won't report on because of their bias. You may not agree with VDare.com's point of view; that's fine. But to say that therefore they shouldn't be linked to is the same argument a Microsoft advocate would make in claiming
This probably has never occured to you, but if you only read things that you know you're going to agree with before you read it, you're never going to learn anything new. Sometimes people you disagree with actually can have a good idea, but you'd never find out about it, would you?
Re:Not a shortage of high-tech workers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Construction workers often get overtime and since they are hourly it is PAID at 1.5X. Try asking your PHB for OT pay at your regular scale.
I had a cousin who dropped out of High School, went to work as an electrician, got his licenses, and made about $25/hour plus OT while I was in making 35K right out of school with a BSCS working 60 hour weeks as a Programmer. He went on to start his own business in electrical contracting and made a fortune then retired about 45.
So yea, construction can pay if you get into the skilled trades. Just being a Laborer is not going to do it though.
Annotations by a real classroom teacher... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but a conversation allows for lateral moves, yes? In any case having criticized him for being off topic, you then engage him point by point. What's up with that?
Errors with your points (my wife works in admin for school district):
And so you get the party line from management, yes? So I thought I'd add a few remarks from a real teacher.
1 - at least one PHB (or PhD) - First, not different every year. Only when change dictated by state. One PHB? You do realize that the principals almost always PhD's in education, not MBA's?
No, every two or three years as they get their vitas together. Still a source of disorder.
2 - endless mandatory meetings - No. Mandatory meetings are usually one per quarter, and they get the day and are paid travel. Every day is a blatent lie, plus it's not held in the county seat.
Not a blatant lie; that would be an example of hyperbole. The professional development overhead in my state (Texas) is not trivial.
3 - PHBs telling
Some are assuredly PHB's. Parent's wife I'm sure is one of the good ones I'm sure, but some are entirely as clueless and mean as Dilbert's boss.
4 - Time at the job is valued more - That's called tenure. It's the largest problem with ridding the system of bad teachers. When was the last time you knew a tech with tenure?
Score one there, kinda. We do have a much better quality of life than many tech workers (except perhaps our own). In particular, anyone who cares about raising their family (read: women) can be forgiven for finding tech a barren and unlovley place, and preferring the public schools. And I haven't noticed managers having much difficulty dislodging bad teachers, but that may be just my environment.
5 - can't move up to another position - A great display of your ignorance about the school systems. The organization is thus: Principal and staff followed immediately by a flat level of all the teachers (not University system). No team leaders, no senior programmers, no analysts; none of the hierarchy you see in many businesse
Score one there, sorta. No, you don't move up by getting other teacher's jobs. But Grandparent is basically correct that you can't go up the ladder as a teacher very readily. It takes a vast committment of time and money and bending your head around the principalship (which ain't for everyone). Though the barriers to entry seem (to me) quite high, the compensations must be nice; the competition for principalships is fierce.